IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTT FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 22765 of 2014 BETWEEN P.Buddaiah AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner claims that he is in occupation and enjoyment of land to an extent of Ac.2-00 cents in Survey No.127/1 of Venkatapuram Village Accounts, S.R.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. Alleging that respondent No.4, Tahsidlar, at the instance of private parties i.e., respondents Nos. 5 to 17, is trying to evict the petitioner from the said land disrupting his possession for several years, the present writ petition is filed. Before filing the present writ petition, petitioner had approached the Joint Collector, Chittoor, under representation, dated 23.07.2014, on which the Joint Collector is stated to have endorsed for an appropriate enquiry. Petitioner alleges that the private party respondents have been trying to evict him with the assistance of respondent No.4, Tahsildar. Hence, petitioner seeks intervention of the Joint Collector under the said representation.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue has secured instructions from the Tahsildar, wherein he states that he has taken charge on 13.06.2014 and that he has not received any representation so far. It is also stated that he has inspected the entire land bearing survey No.127/1 and the said land admeasuring Ac.7-88 cents is classified as Kalvaporamboke in the Adangal, Village Accounts and Survey Records and that the petitioner and eight others were found in possession. Learned government pleader, however, specifically states that since the Tahsildar has duly taken over the charge, he will follow due process of law, if he wants to take action against the petitioner.
4. It is evident from the above, that the Tahsildar, as such, is not interfering with the possession of the petitioner and would follow due process of law, if he wants to take any action against the petitioner. The primary grievance of the petitioner that he is likely to be dispossessed by respondent No.3, therefore, appears to be based only on apprehension and, as such, no further orders are necessary to be passed.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 21, 2014 LMV